We are not Free Agents

So much talk about the Mets ability to re-sign superstar shortstop Jose Reyes has me thinking: Are average working Americans free agents?

Quite honestly, no. As much as we like to think we have the freedom to switch jobs, unless you possess extraordinarily uncommon skills, like a Jose Reyes, you are probably going to have to settle for whatever job you can get just to make ends meet. Employers know this; that’s why they know we will put up with their silly furlough days and years with no raises and doing the work of three people. Our options are limited in terms of employment.

Not so for a guy like Jose Reyes. As a Mets fan, I hope they re-sign him. A talent like Reyes comes along once in a generation. True, he’s not perfect. I sometimes think he has the hamstrings of an 80-year-old. Still, when he’s healthy, he’s a game-changer.

That’s why I think the Mets will make him a good offer, probably an above-market offer. But if some dumb owner comes along and offers an astronomical contract…well, Jose can’t be blamed for taking the money. He has to think about the financial security of his family over the loyalty to a team that has played poorly the past four years and shows no signs of turning into a contender anytime soon.

A more apropos situation to what average working Americans go through is how the Yankees treated Derek Jeter when he became a free agent before this season. Let me be clear: I hate the Yankees and Jeter reminds me of robot, a cold fish. But the way the team treated him made even this Yankee-hater cringe.

The Yankee hierarchy pretty much told him to take a hike. Why? Because his agent asked for too much money in the opening rounds of contract negotiations? Hey, that’s what agents do. Because he was getting old? At age 37, he’s no spring chicken, but he’s kept himself in shape and is now playing much better after a rough start at the beginning of the season. And did the Yankees have anyone to replace him? (And, no, Yankee fans, we are not giving you Jose Reyes for A.J. Burnett.)

It was just a reminder of how employers know they have the upper hand with employees these days. Get too old? We’ll get rid of ya. (A lot of that going around.) Make too much money? Buh-bye.

Would the Yankees have won all those championships without Jeter? Probably not. I think their winning had more to do with Mariano Rivera, but Jeter was a big part of it. He’s been a good soldier for the organization and has never embarrassed himself or the team (something I cannot say about quite a few Mets). Yet the team publicly dissed him. He did sign, but for less than he wanted just to stay with the team he’s worked so hard for and that apparently has very little respect for him despite his years of loyalty. I know the feeling, DJ.

Back to the other shortstop in town: To be fair, Jose hasn’t been a jerk about his impending free agency (for that, see LeBron James). He has said numerous times that he loves playing for the Mets and playing in New York. And why wouldn’t he want to stay? There’s no better stage for an athlete than NYC and it has a large Latino population.

I would hate to see him go, but my gut feeling is he will not stay with the team.

That’s his choice. Wouldn’t it be nice if we all had the same opportunity?

Dear Corporate Fat Cats

Dear Corporate Fat Cats:

I, and so many other unemployed and put-upon workers, owe you an apology. Yes, an apology.

We never realized how hard it is for you to lay off so many workers. I remember the day when my boss had to tell several co-workers that they were being laid off due to budget cuts. He said how draining it was for him to tell those people their jobs were being terminated. Oh, he caught himself soon after and said that, of course, it was tougher on the people losing their jobs. But that was nothing compared to what he had to go through in telling people their employment, paychecks and quite possibly their careers were coming to an end.

So, I now understand how difficult it must be to lay off so many workers so profits can be kept high. Isn’t that why we were laid off, to save the company? How selfish of us to think of ourselves and not the corporation.

Yes, you must keep those profits soaring and not hire any more workers and overwork the ones you already have. How else can you rake in those big bonuses that keep you in million-dollar homes and fancy cars? Without those bonuses, your children won’t go to the expensive private schools and Ivy League colleges that will give them best chance for top-paying jobs someday. Why must they compete against people who went to state schools or—horrors!—a community college? The unfairness of it all!

And the way some in the government treat you is just so unfair. Imagine—they want corporations to pay their fair share of taxes. But how can you pile on the profits when you are asked to pay taxes? And those pesky regulations? Better we should go back to a no-oversight system like we had back in the late 19th century, when there were no unions or safety regulations. Why should workers be protected when there are corporate profits to be made?

But I must say, it’s getting harder and harder for us workers to buy goods and services on our unemployment checks or paychecks that haven’t seen a raise in a year or more. At some point, won’t our inability to purchase cut into your revenues? The workers in the factories you placed overseas to boost profits will stand idle. Corporate profits may shrink.

And I know how hard that will be for you, Mr. Corporate Fat Cat. You have my deepest sympathy.

Sincerely,

The American Worker

“It’s business, not personal”

I’ve been watching two of my favorite movies this week: Godfather, Parts I and II. I’m partial to Part II myself, but Part I has a great scene that reminds me of something I was told the day I was laid off.

It’s the scene where Sonny Corleone and Tom Hagen and others plot their next move after Virgil “The Turk” Sollozzo shot their father, Vito, the Godfather. Michael Corleone is also present, after having his jaw broken by a corrupt cop.

Hagen reminds hotheaded Sonny not to get carried away with revenge, that what Sollozzo did was “business, not personal.”

Then Michael, who has so far stayed out of the family business, chimes in, saying he should be the one to kill The Turk and the police captain. Michael insists that it’s not personal, it’s business.

Well, of course, it’s personal. Anybody with a spit of Italian blood in them (like me) knows this is about as personal as it can get. Every decision Michael makes from then on is made from a sense of personal revenge, a lifelong vendetta. His enemies shot his father, killed his brother and blew up his Sicilian bimbo wife (“Michele, Michele." BOOM!). How could he not take that personally? (However, even I think he went too far when he had his brother, the poor, pitiful Fredo, killed.)

Yet, companies insist that massive layoffs are done for business reasons, not anything personal versus their employees. Yeah, right.

During my layoff meeting, I was told it was a business decision and no reflection on my work.

Well, I beg to differ. While I agree companies must cut back in hard times when revenues are lean, how those layoffs are handled bring in a personal element that is unsettling to say the least.

First, why are some people given the power to lay off other people? Why are they the chosen ones?

Any company that laid off people in late 2009, as I was, knew those tossed-aside employees were facing a difficult employment market and would be out of work for a long stretch of time, as I was (16 months). Our lives were being disrupted through no fault of our own.

When someone is out of work for that long, how can they expect to feed their families and pay their mortgages? What companies see as purely a business decision has devastating personal ramifications on the people they put out of work. How is that not personal? But I guess these corporate overlords can justify anything as long as profits are high and their bonuses keep rolling in.

As is so often the case, after I was laid off, I found out some things that made me wonder just how much of the decision to terminate my employment was based on personal, rather than purely business factors. Such as:

Another editor with less time in the company and who was making more than me was retained. Was he more valuable to the company than me? Perhaps. But perhaps he was kept on because he was the boss’s handpicked lapdog.

The day before I was let go, three of my former colleagues argued in favor of keeping another colleague scheduled to be laid off the same day I was. Why? Was it because he was popular and was one of the cool kids? (Yes, the workplace is just like high school.) Or was it because, as I later learned, one of those colleagues was lazy and afraid if they laid off this person his workload would double? So, I was thrown under the bus because of another person’s laziness?

In the two years leading up to my layoff, the head of the department systematically terminated the employment of anyone who was near him in seniority. Again, he said it was because we were making too much money. But was he afraid of having experienced people around who could replace him? After all, he was making more than any of us. Our parent company could replace him with any of us for less money. Now that there is nobody left but only his handpicked puppets and less experienced staff, his job is safe.

He was also someone who didn’t like it when co-workers, particularly women, questioned him. Was he trying to get rid of people he considered troublesome employees so he could surround himself with his personally selected acolytes? Just asking.

So you see, companies may justify their layoffs by saying it’s done for business reasons. But the impact on those they lay off is very personal. And how can we be sure that those making the layoff decisions aren’t bringing in their own personal feelings (vindictiveness? favoritism? insecurity?) into the equation rather than a purely business perspective? It’s a system ripe for unfairness and abuse. How can they expect us not to be pissed off when we get the boot?

Therefore, when a worker is called into a room and told they are being laid off for business reasons, the perfect response would be:

"Vaffanculo"